Written by Roy Black

James Holmes used a semiautomatic variation of the military’s M-16 rifle, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and at least one .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol. According to law enforcement, Mr. Holmes purchased all of his weapons legally. In the four months before the shootings, he also bought 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for a semiautomatic rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun, all over the Internet.

What evidence is needed for gun control? Here is a partial list:

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (2011)
Fort Hood (2009)
Samson AL (2008)
Covina, CA (2008)
Virginia Tech (2007)
New Life Church (2007)
Omaha, NE (2007)
Red Lake high School, MN (2005)
DC sniper shootings (2002)
Columbine High School (1999)
New York City subway (1993)
Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX (1991)
Oklahoma Post Office (1986)
McDonald’s, San Diego, CA (1984)
Wah Mee Club, Seattle, WA (1983)
Bobby Kennedy (1968)
Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968)
Texas Tower, Austin, TX (1966)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1963)

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that a National Rifle Association spokesman declined to comment on gun legislation “until all the facts are known.”

Share this story:

4 Comments to Aurora

  1. July 25, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    US voters are intellectually unable to outthink the bs pitches foisted upon them by the special interest groups. A democracy gets the government it deserve.

  2. Chris Casper's Gravatar Chris Casper
    July 26, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    I can see why you didn’t list all the incidents where law-abiding firearm owners thwarted a crime–it would be a hell of a lot longer.

  3. Marcos Beaton's Gravatar Marcos Beaton
    July 27, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Roy: Chris is right. The list is quite long. It just doesn’t fit into the narrative created by the national media so it isn’t out there, but it happens quite often. The fact is, there are plenty of gun laws on the books. Look at Florida’s 10-20-life sentencing scheme, which applies exclusively to “gun violence”, complete with its minimum mandatories. What more can the government do? How much harsher can it get? This whole “gun control” debate goes down the same road as the “drug war”. More laws and harsher penalties are not the answer. There are a number of cultural and societal dynamics at play that no amount of laws or punishment will EVER change. The only thing the President said yesterday with which I agree – and I have never heard it said so artfully – is: “We must also understand that when a child opens fire on other children, there’s a hole in his heart that no government can fill.” Let’s start the debate there.

  4. Simplot's Gravatar Simplot
    August 22, 2012 at 1:34 am | Permalink


    I presume you have some degree of respect for the law, and recognize the US Constitution as ultimately the highest law of the land.

    Given that, you must disagree with Mao’s statement that “all [political] power [ultimately] flows from the barrel of a gun” (there are differing translations).

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is not about hunting or self-defense. It is a means of ensuring the other rights in the Bill of Rights by providing the populace with the means of resisting a tyrannical government (think Syria as a counterexample). In Miller, the Supreme Court held that a sawed off shotgun was not a firearm protected by the Second Amendment because it was NOT a military weapon. An AR-15 and a Beretta 9mm semiauto pistol both are standard individual weapons in our military service. These are exactly the firearms that the Second Amendment is intended to protect the right of individuals to own and bear.

    This is because those are the barrels from which political power ultimately flows – and the Second Amendment recognizes that those are the tools of political power that must be widely dispersed among the populace to ensure the US does not devolve into a tyrannical form of government from which the people are unable to extract themselves. Think of the disarmament of the German populace as one of the early acts of the Nazi Party and the inability of Jews to resist later on due to lack of arms.

    This is not a weighing test of the benefits versus costs of firearms for self-defense. This is solely about who controls the barrels from which ultimate political power flows – the people or a government elite.

    On a related note, this is also why the Founders feared a standing army in the US, as they had seen tyrannical governments, including the British, use standing armies to suppress their own citizens. It is also why the Founders did not endow the Federal government with the general police power.


Leave a Reply:

You must be logged in to post a comment.